I normally do not get into these debates. It’s usually pointless to argue merits with people who refuse to compare apples to apples and want to throw a watermelon into the mix.
IMO cost does count toward enjoyment since I’m not independently wealthy anything I buy is a trade-off for something else I now can’t afford that might also be equally enjoyable but in a different way.
You can not do that and keep the debate reasonably neutral and on topic. We are comparing enjoyment of content and the format in which it is viewed. If you start pulling dollars into the discussion, we might as well keep the discussion limited to 19” television sets sitting on milk crates in the tent in the back yard. And in that case, there’s no reason to continue this discussion.
I imagine most people have to make the same trade-offs as I did meaning they are not likely using a lens or video processor. I can’t speak to everyone’s constraints but it just so happened that the widest screen I could fit would also accommodate the corresponding height for a 1.78:1 screen. So why would I sacrifice my 1.33:1 (about 25+% of my viewing) and 1.78:1 (about 70+% of my viewing) size to use a 2.35:1 screen. Also, since most of what I watch is in a 1.78:1 or similar ratio it made sense intuitively to buy the screen that was in both that ratio which is also the native ratio of the projector rather than adding more processing steps to the image (lens and scaling). IMO (I understand not all people will share it) 1.78:1 creates a more natural view. The area it covers is just as wide as a 2.35:1 image but being higher also covers more of the area I can naturally focus on w/o going to far off into my peripheral vision. So even if I could afford a lens and video processor I wouldn’t want to use one to get a 2.35:1 ratio since I prefer a 1.78:1 picture.
I already conceded to this point. It is valid, and quite frankly, the only valid point. If you can not accommodate a 2.35 screen width without sacrificing a comfortable 1.78 image height, don’t do it.
Most movies (film) are 2.35 and have been for decades (most were actually 2.70 prior to 2.35). I have very few that are anything but 2.35 so I’m not real sure why you have more 1.78 than 2.35 if you are referring to film. Heck, I even have more 1.85 movies that 1.78.
One point that needs to be mentioned in this debate is maximum screen height. Rarely (if ever) do you hear screen height mentioned because that is rarely limited by room dimensions. I find this ridiculous. Moving the eyes up / down creates more eye strain than back and forth by a considerable degree. When selecting a maximum screen size, a person should be more concerned with the height than the width. Having said that, once maximum screen height has been established, physical room width now becomes the limiting factor. If you have room for 2.35, go for it. If you don’t, then stick with 1.78. If you do go for 2.35 and install a HE lens, the image height will remain the same regardless of content.
Finally, if for some reason I later want to change my screen to 2.35:1 exclusively I can always mask it down. To go the other way I would have to buy another screen. While I can see some reasons why a person might prefer a 2.35:1 screen I imagine they don’t apply to most people and though I’m to lazy to research it right now I’d be surprised if 2.35:1 is the most popular screen ratio
1.78 is much more popular than 2.35. No need to research that. The reason isn’t because the aspect ratio of 1.78 is more pleasing though. It’s simple economics and education. If you were to take a poll to every person who has ever bought a screen and asked if they knew what the term “constant image height” actually meant and what was involved to achieve it, you’d probably see a percentage of less than 10% who did. Of that 10%, most believe the costs involved are too great. There are more costs involved, but they are not as much as most think they are. You can spend over 10 grand on a HE lens, but you most certainly do not need to. High quality lenses can be found on used market for under a grand. You also do not need to buy a video processor. Most displays have a V-stretch feature now. All you need to do is move the lens or buy one that you can leave in place and turn a knob to pass through with expansion. There will be a day when 2.35 projectors are main stream and all you have to do is punch a button. When that day comes, you will see a shift in the market.
Until seeing a CIH set up in person, you just won’t know what you are missing. Ther is no way I would give it up unless I had no other choice. I doubt you will find any CIH owners who would disagree with me on this point.
